Anyway, whatever this video shows, does it prove that the cab wasn't hit by a light pole? Because otherwise we have ABSOLUTE PROOF OF A CONSPIRACY!!!1!!!1!!!!!_________________"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.

Who would have thought that this building, with fire apparent on only one floor :

Should collapse a few seconds later.

It (the building) didn't collapse - only a small percentage of it.

Your video goes a long to proving quite the reverse of what you intended. A fire on;

Quote:

only one floor

Leads to localised and small scale collapse.

sam, are you Ignatz?

Well done. Please post any more you have to support controlled demolition._________________I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC

I'm having terrible problems finding any evidence of human victims,concrete floors or building contents of the gravity collapses, consequent to the Chinese earthquake, turning to dust as in the 9/11 twin tower structural failures I wonder can any critics help?

If and when you intone the littany... the twin towers were different as they were impacted by two fast moving large objects could you be more specific and give us the formula for human victims,building contents and concrete floors vapourising as a result of impacts one and two hours earlier?

One of the disadvantages of having 'critics corner' is that valid points for discussion in this section tend to be overlooked and the assumption that 'critics' are always wrong, or always right dependent on ones point of view may well be misleading.

For myself, interest was first aroused after viewing a pentagon video and faced with the physical impossibility of the official story purporting that a plane with a width of 128 meters disappearing into a 6 meter hole. For my mind, the disappearing plane at Shanksville was no more a plausible tale.

However less apparent was the collapse of the twin towers being other than what it appeared at the time. Could it be inadequacies in design and or construction in the face of impact and subsequent fire? Whatever assurances are given by the architects, building inspectors and independent engineers there exists a chance that this was either the cause or contributing factor.

What is known, from photographic evidence is that some supporting beams had been cut to a regular form, this has no resemblance steel suffering fracture due to pressure, and that heat pockets of high temperature material remained visible at the site of the towers for many days after the collapse. No inert material can do this without incendiary material present.

With this I am drawn to the conclusion that whatever the inadequacies in design and or construction this cannot have been the sole cause of collapse. It is nevertheless accepted that all must reach conclusion based on reasonable doubt with arguments presented.

Citing other instances of other building collapses must be germane to conclusions made. (Prior to the WTC collapses (to my knowledge) 2 other collapses due to fire are reported). We all owe it to ourselves to investigate such events for purposes of comparability.

In this instance I offer the following link for to give a fuller aspect on the collapse.

http://www.lalamy.demon.co.uk/ronanpnt.htm_________________JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12

What is known, from photographic evidence is that some supporting beams had been cut to a regular form, this has no resemblance steel suffering fracture due to pressure...

And it was never claimed that this did have any resemblence to pressure fractures - a straw man criticism.

It IS claimed that these 'regular' cuts were made to parts of the wreckage during the rescue operation. If you can disprove that reasonable explanation, then you may be onto something (NOTE: you can't!).

Quote:

...and that heat pockets of high temperature material remained visible at the site of the towers for many days after the collapse. No inert material can do this without incendiary material present.

Your assertion, but not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. It has never been proven that these high temperatures were in any way abnormal for such an event. Another dead end.

Quote:

It is nevertheless accepted that all must reach conclusion based on reasonable doubt with arguments presented.

I don't actually agree with that - why is it necessary for internet amateurs to reach conclusion at all? All you end up with is a load of ignorant conclusions based on misunderstandings and poor science.

I agree. Comparing this partial collapse with the total collapse of wtc7 works against the critic's case.

It depends on the aspect of the collapse you focus on - if you concentrate solely on the words 'partial' vs 'total' then it can seem quite different. But that is cherry picking one aspect of this collapse to try and dismiss it.

There seems to be lots of dust here. Perhaps large amounts of dust is 'normal' for any collapse, rather than being simply a 'characteristic of destruction by explosives'?

Richard Gage and others claim that pyroclastic flows of dust occured during the twin towers collapse - where is the evidence? (NOTE: he has recently changed his wording to 'pyroclastic-like' - science in action?)

And whatever scale of collapse, this apparently occured due to fire alone. Can a collapse of any scale, whether partial or total, occur from fire alone?

In defence of my assertions.
I'm sure you, as I, are aware of the arguments regarding cut beams. Regarding the main image of contention it is stated, 'the image, taken a few days after 9/11 (and before the cleanup began)'. Without counterclaim, my opinion is unchanged.

As to

Quote:

It has never been proven that these high temperatures were in any way abnormal for such an event.

In general, I'm not on a quest prove or disprove anything to anybody, the use of this site is for awareness, not acceptance.I do however encourage people to look at both sides of the 911 controversy by checking out both truth and debunking sites in order that they formulate opinions for themselves.

The reason this? 'in my opinion', 911 was the catalyst for the deaths of over one million and counting. What IS important to me is that people have an greater understanding of the reasons why such abominations are undertaken serving only the greediest of greedy.

In defence of my assertions.
I'm sure you, as I, are aware of the arguments regarding cut beams. Regarding the main image of contention it is stated, 'the image, taken a few days after 9/11 (and before the cleanup began)'. Without counterclaim, my opinion is unchanged.

You are talking about the picture with a fireman and a cut beam. There's no clear idea when the picture was taken, whether it was before or during cleanup. The fireman is often used to date it, but there were firemen on-site as late as December. We know that steel was cut during the clean-up operation, and a beam sticking straight up as that one was would surely be a prime candidate for being cut.

There's certainly no direct evidence that the beam came down from the tower like that, and there seems to be a reasonable explanation as to why it would be cut at ground level. There even seems to be residue consistent with such a cut.

I'm happy that the photo can be reasonably explained without having to start considering CD.

Quote:

Quote:

It has never been proven that these high temperatures were in any way abnormal for such an event.

You link to a picture of a digger extracting something orange from the site, as if that alone is proof of anything. I say again, it has never been proven that the temperatures at ground zero were in any way abnormal for such an event. I don't deny that things were hot, I just don't see how this naturally means CD, incendiaries or anything underhand. Where's the proof?

For example, where is some explanation of how a CD would cause such high temperatures to remain over such a long time?

Quote:

In general, I'm not on a quest prove or disprove anything to anybody, the use of this site is for awareness, not acceptance.I do however encourage people to look at both sides of the 911 controversy by checking out both truth and debunking sites in order that they formulate opinions for themselves.

I totally agree - such a shame that sites such as these hide away any dissention, as if scared of conflicting opinions. It actually does our cherished opinions good to have them challenged.

Yes ive been watching a dvd called 911 Ground Zero which is not a conspiracy dvd but a video account of someone taken over a period of days weeks and months. it shows large steel columns being cut during the clean up period by a guy using oxycetylene burning/cutting gear but the cut he is making is horizontal not shaped. Probably horizontal as that is the shortest route.
It might be argued that clean up guys might have used thermate cutter charges to speed up the cutting process and it might be argued that the unreacted thermate found may be as a result of this.

All that said the 3 towers did not collapse in the manner that they did as a result of planes and jetfuel

available along with a load of other dvds at www.politicaldvds.co.uk
(Not my site and i dont get commission!!) I notice its online store is not open now till May 22nd_________________JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12

Alex: Re your previous comments.
You link to a picture of a digger extracting something orange from the site? A lollypop perhaps? There's no clear idea when the picture was taken? Indeed, no clear idea it was taken at the WTC at all or that it is only a photo-shop composite picture. (Me thinks perhaps you play the devils advocate a tad too strongly).

Whatever the case, I do consider your input to this forum to be an asset. I would only ask that you quote sources for your points lest they be dismissed as contrivences of your own imagination in support of a prejudicial view of events. (Perhaps the reason why you have apparently been banned could be explained.)

It is important that concepts held are open to critical challenge and subject to re-evaluation periodically in order that views expressed are given in confidence based the best interpretation of the all evidence available.

Yes ive been watching a dvd called 911 Ground Zero which is not a conspiracy dvd but a video account of someone taken over a period of days weeks and months. it shows large steel columns being cut during the clean up period by a guy using oxycetylene burning/cutting gear but the cut he is making is horizontal not shaped. Probably horizontal as that is the shortest route.

Is there any way you can take a screen shot and post it, or give a link to an internet version of the video with an approximate timing?

cheers

sam_________________Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

...and that heat pockets of high temperature material remained visible at the site of the towers for many days after the collapse. No inert material can do this without incendiary material present.

Your assertion, but not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. It has never been proven that these high temperatures were in any way abnormal for such an event. Another dead end.

But has it been proven that these high temperatures were normal for such an event? If it has, please point me to it.

Alex is banned, KP. Dunno for how long, but right now you'll not get an answer from him.

However - "has it been proven that these high temperatures were normal for such an event" is a slightly odd question. There never has - before or since - been such an event, so determining "normal" is bound to be tricky.

But, a small example .. I had a *monster* bonfire of tree prunings and dry weeds etc a few weeks ago. It burned furiously for about 20 mins, then settled down to just simmering and glowing. Next morning (about 12 hours later) I added more dry prunings to the old pile of ash - aiming for another bonfire - and they started smouldering immediately from the residual heat. It was still soddin' hot after 12 hours, and that was just a pretty trivial domestic bonfire.

In even a modest fire (say a large house, a warehouse or similar) fire crews may "damp down" for many hours after the fire is technically "out", to prevent re-ignition. WTC was degrees of magnitude beyond that in size and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that surface temperatures at GZ were very high for a long time._________________Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

...and that heat pockets of high temperature material remained visible at the site of the towers for many days after the collapse. No inert material can do this without incendiary material present.

Your assertion, but not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. It has never been proven that these high temperatures were in any way abnormal for such an event. Another dead end.

But has it been proven that these high temperatures were normal for such an event? If it has, please point me to it.

Alex is banned, KP. Dunno for how long, but right now you'll not get an answer from him.

However - "has it been proven that these high temperatures were normal for such an event" is a slightly odd question. There never has - before or since - been such an event, so determining "normal" is bound to be tricky.

But, a small example .. I had a *monster* bonfire of tree prunings and dry weeds etc a few weeks ago. It burned furiously for about 20 mins, then settled down to just simmering and glowing. Next morning (about 12 hours later) I added more dry prunings to the old pile of ash - aiming for another bonfire - and they started smouldering immediately from the residual heat. It was still soddin' hot after 12 hours, and that was just a pretty trivial domestic bonfire.

In even a modest fire (say a large house, a warehouse or similar) fire crews may "damp down" for many hours after the fire is technically "out", to prevent re-ignition. WTC was degrees of magnitude beyond that in size and it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that surface temperatures at GZ were very high for a long time.

I know I would get no answer from Alex, banned or otherwise.

Also I know I will get no answer from you other than a few idle ramblings but that's OK. I was merely pointing out the traditional debunker gambit of "You can't prove that" is fairly nonsensical when the absence of proof is actually on the other side other than the traditional vague "well of course nothing like this has ever happened before" copout.

I had a *monster* bonfire of tree prunings and dry weeds etc a few weeks ago. It burned furiously for about 20 mins, then settled down to just simmering and glowing. Next morning (about 12 hours later) I added more dry prunings to the old pile of ash - aiming for another bonfire - and they started smouldering immediately from the residual heat. It was still soddin' hot after 12 hours, and that was just a pretty trivial domestic bonfire.

You may be really of to something here, who would of thought? How about ramming home the point!
Next time you have a monster bonfire why not put a steel bar into it. Wait till it starts to spark as it near melting point. Then take it out and quickly bury it in the ground. You need to wait about six weeks, then dig up the bar, if its cool enough for you to get near, take the temperature photographing your evidence. Then provided you record a temperature significantly greater than that of the surrounding soil nobody on this site could possibly dispute your findings.

Also I know I will get no answer from you other than a few idle ramblings but that's OK. I was merely pointing out the traditional debunker gambit of "You can't prove that" is fairly nonsensical when the absence of proof is actually on the other side other than the traditional vague "well of course nothing like this has ever happened before" copout.

KP50 my dear fellow,

If you are your chums are claiming the "molten" metal is a bit suspicious then you need to show why!!! Can you show that there is no other reasonable explanation for this "molten" metal other than thermite or CD? Of course you can't otherwise you would have shown us it!!

The people you label as critics believe the official story, our proof is the official reports. If you dont believe the official reports it is up to you to proof them wrong!!!

Also I know I will get no answer from you other than a few idle ramblings but that's OK. I was merely pointing out the traditional debunker gambit of "You can't prove that" is fairly nonsensical when the absence of proof is actually on the other side other than the traditional vague "well of course nothing like this has ever happened before" copout.

KP50 my dear fellow,

If you are your chums are claiming the "molten" metal is a bit suspicious then you need to show why!!! Can you show that there is no other reasonable explanation for this "molten" metal other than thermite or CD? Of course you can't otherwise you would have shown us it!!

The people you label as critics believe the official story, our proof is the official reports. If you dont believe the official reports it is up to you to proof them wrong!!!

Don't be patronising Wibble, it doesn't suit you.

If your proof is the "official reports", then please point me to some text in the "official reports" which explains how the molten metal was produced given the "official" account of what happened on 9/11. I'll come back in a week or so to see how you get on.

Have you even been to the NIST website? It took about 5 seconds to find this.

Quote:

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

Have you even been to the NIST website? It took about 5 seconds to find this.

Quote:

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

Have you even been reading this thread? It is a discussion of the high temperatures underground post-collapse.

Whether your theories of thermite are correct or not you can not compare the "molten" fluid seen on 9/11 with any form of pure molten metal. Even if thermite melted the steel WTC beams there would be an almost endless list of contaminates mixed into the metled steel!!! So if you think all that disproves the NIST then it also disproves thermite.

KP50, who cares were the "molten" metal was found it all came from the same place (the towers, aircraft) and of course gravity would ensure it all ended in/on the ground in the end. You asked for text from the official reports explaining molten metal and I gave it. Now can you show that there is no other reasonable explanation for the molten metal other than thermite? Will I get an answer of more question that have already been answered and ignored by you? Or just more youtube links? If you have answers to all this why do you not show them instead of playing these games?

PS still waiting for you on the other threads old boy. What are you excuses for hiding away this time?

Whether your theories of thermite are correct or not you can not compare the "molten" fluid seen on 9/11 with any form of pure molten metal. Even if thermite melted the steel WTC beams there would be an almost endless list of contaminates mixed into the metled steel!!! So if you think all that disproves the NIST then it also disproves thermite.

KP50, who cares were the "molten" metal was found it all came from the same place (the towers, aircraft) and of course gravity would ensure it all ended in/on the ground in the end. You asked for text from the official reports explaining molten metal and I gave it. Now can you show that there is no other reasonable explanation for the molten metal other than thermite? Will I get an answer of more question that have already been answered and ignored by you? Or just more youtube links? If you have answers to all this why do you not show them instead of playing these games?

PS still waiting for you on the other threads old boy. What are you excuses for hiding away this time?

Looks like you were found out being incorrect again Wibble so you resorted to bluff and bluster. Anyone who has looked into 9/11 (I presume you have although I am not too sure) knows that massive temperatures were recorded below the rubble pile in the basement levels of the 2 towers (and WTC7). That is the topic for discussion and has been for a fair few posts on this thread now.

I asked you to provide some official explanation for this extraordinary happening, you didn't provide one - yet again you wibbled. I want you to provide one explanation which we can then "prove wrong". I don't believe that office fires high up a tower can cause metal melting temperatures deep underground - that sounds impossible to me. Do you believe it is possible? If so, how was it achieved?

Did you not read the NIST report? Probably not. Anyway the quote above shows the expected temperatures of 1000 degrees and they have given examples of metals that melt well below that.

and

Quote:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Now stop asking questions all the time and read the offical reports!!! Then explain how, in detail, thermite of CD could be responsible for these temperatures?

Also please quote which sources you are using for the reports on "molten steel" and "high temperatures" so I can check if you are not doing the truther trick of just quoting a miss quote of a misquote etc.

Did you not read the NIST report? Probably not. Anyway the quote above shows the expected temperatures of 1000 degrees and they have given examples of metals that melt well below that.

and

Quote:

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

Now stop asking questions all the time and read the offical reports!!! Then explain how, in detail, thermite of CD could be responsible for these temperatures?

Also please quote which sources you are using for the reports on "molten steel" and "high temperatures" so I can check if you are not doing the truther trick of just quoting a miss quote of a misquote etc.

Was that quote so good you had to post it twice Wibble? Did you actually read it?

Quote:

The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

They are saying in fancy words "All we did was produce a computer model to have a guess at how the collapse was initiated. After that full and total collapse was inevitable (because we say so)" You can throw the NIST report around all you want, you can do your usual jibes "I bet you haven't even read it", but nowhere in that report is there an attempt to explain how the basement became so hot. It is stacked up with all of the other forensics which were ignored due to the lack of a serious criminal investigation.

Quote:

Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

No explanation there either, just vagueness.

And I can't believe you posted that debunking page with a straight face - you really can't have it both ways as a debunker, you can't insult Steven Jones and endlessly question his credentials as a scientist and then post that pseudo-scientific * as some sort of explanation. Out of interest, which of those explanations do you like best? Or like me, do you consider them all complete claptrap?

For example, you can't have the whole mass of the building of driving down and creating a massive heat in the basement and then have survivors on around the 7th floor of the North Tower. If anything like the mass of the building had come straight down, there would have been no survivors. And if the mass didn't come down onto the basements, then nor did the heat of the fires. So how did they get so hot?

I had a look - you are the only one to mention "molten steel", as for the temperatures, there are multiple reports of an underground "furnace" and that it burnt for 3 months.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum